October 13, 2005

Defending Judy Miller

Although you haven't seen many ringing defenses of Judy Miller on the pages of this blog over the last few years, in the last couple of days I seem to be mounting a stealth campaign for the Presidency of the Judy Miller Fan Club.

Well - Mark Kleiman sums up the latest evidence suggesting that Ms. Miller perjured herself, and cooperated with Special Counsel Fitzgerald on that basis. A key point - the WSJ tells us that:

She first appeared before the grand jury on Sept. 30 to talk about two
conversations she had in July 2003. She made a second appearance
Wednesday to disclose a third conversation in late June that she had
previously failed to mention to the grand jury.

Ahh! Did she fail to disclose it in response to direct questioning? That might be perjury.

One source close to Miller said it appears that the notes were
Fitzgerald's first indication that Miller and Libby had spoken in June.

...After Miller testified before the grand jury Sept. 30, a source close
to Miller said, Fitzgerald and her attorney urged her to go back
through her old notes and turn over any that involved Libby or would be
relevant to the case, the source said.

So, here is an alternative to the perjury theory - Ms. Miller testified to something vague, such as "I may have met with Libby earlier and had a discussion relevant to the inquiry of this grand jury; I would need to check my notes, which have not been subpoenaed."

No perjury there. But afterwards, Fitzgerald will surely ask for the notes. And since his subpoena called for notes relevant to the July conversations, and since the July conversations *may* have been a follow-up to the June conversation, those June notes are, arguably, covered by the subpoena as well. If not, then a new subpoena looms.

Her attorney will advise her that this is a fight she can not win - she will (hypothetically) be advised that she went to jail to protect the July conversations despite a judge ruling against her, and she can either give up the new notes, or go back to jail.

And since the contempt order had not yet been lifted, the return trip to jail was imminent.

The upshot - cooperation, but no perjury.

The significance of this alternative "no perjury" view - other than to promote my secret candidacy, I am not sure. But the Anon Lib has an idea about why the June 23 talk may be important - briefly, Russert spoke to Libby in July, and may have told him about Plame (we agree!). However, if Libby told Miller about Plame in June, then Russert can't be an alibi witness for Libby.

Slick. However, only the invaluable Murray Waas has reported that the June talk involved Plame, and his sourcing was odd; other reports say the notes are about Wilson. Developing... [Score one for Waas - per Ms. Miller's account, the June talk did include Wilson's wife, although perhaps not by name.]

MORE: Since I will be incommunicado until Monday, I am gloomily resigned to indictments Friday, and the Times report on Saturday. KIDDING! (Maybe.)

Comments

This is an entirely irrelevant fact, unless you're trying to imply (laughably) that the Bush admis is opposed to cronyism.

If the implication of her recommending him is - as the wingiest of the wingers believe - that she was a CIA activist trying to undercut the president's case for war, then that was a battle to be fought seperately. In a lawful, honorable fashion, once they had proof enough to ... request a federal investigation of such a serious charge.

No, this was the same Rove who had to let the world know that John McCain's wife had a drug problem. They're slimy, sneaky little bastards. They wanted to add a little dollop of insult onto Wilson by making him seem like the lackey of his wife. And they needed so bad to do this that they treated the classification of national security information as a scofflaw that was they were too important to respect.

But keep on going. I love watching right wing folk defend lawbreaking.

Does it matter that Wilson was claiming to have seen a forged document 8 months before the US government had possession of it? Does his 'misspoke' to the SSIC come into play?

MSM keeps reporting that what Wilson found in Africa refuted the 16 words in the Presiden't SOTU address. It didn't. Only in the mind of Wilson, who BTW, did not write a report, if you can believe him. What he found in Niger changed no one's mind. It bolstered those in the CIA who believed the account. It bolstered those who didn't. The mission was a wash.

It got the attention it deserved, which was little. It only had importance in Joe's mind until we failed to find as much WMD as feared; then he and the anti-war crowd seized on a misinterpretation of his work to inflate his accomplishments. Accomplishments which were confidential. The lying about the forgeries may just tantalize those of us who basically think this arose from Joe's fevered imagination and only gained substance as a weapon of mass political destruction, which the Democrats are going to find is most destructivae to them.

This is an entirely irrelevant fact, unless you're trying to imply (laughably) that the Bush admis is opposed to cronyism.

Umm, no. The impression that the VP was directly involved in sending Wilson is critical to his main point (that they ignored his debunking), and adds credibility to his assertion that CIA sent "a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president" on his trip. In fact, neither happened. Tenet, in his statement after Wilson's column came out, felt obligated to point out that:

CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.

Speculation followed on why the Administration would select a Dem partisan for the trip, and the answer, of course, was his wife.

But keep on going. I love watching right wing folk defend lawbreaking.

You're assuming lawbreaking. And evidence for that in the "outing" portion of this mess is not very convincing. (Though there appears to be considerably more to the scurrying about afterward.)

Did he "claim" to have seen classified docs 8 months earlier or was he bloviating, which seems to be his forte? Only the ultra wingy seem to find this compelling. I tend to think if Fitzgerald thought so, he'd be on it. And , all wishful thinking to the contrary, it doesn't seem he is.

I love how no one addresses what is the likeliest crime. That nasty perjury/obstruction thing that you all found soooooooo freaking outrageous when it had to do with Clinton's afternoon delights. Not so outrageous apparently, when it touches on national security, classified information and a false cassus belli that has already demolished almost 2000 American lives.

That nasty perjury/obstruction thing that you all found soooooooo freaking outrageous when it had to do with Clinton's afternoon delights.

The obstruction thing with Clinton was an issue because of the chief law enforcement officer of the US distributing false talking points to all the witnesses to make sure the perjury matched. (Luckily for him, they couldn't prove it.) This one is considerably less important, even if it were proved (which, considering the spotty memories of the prosecution witnesses, appears doubtful).

Considerably less important to coordinate lies about issues pertaining to national security than to coordinate lies about issues pertaining to extramarital sex? Thanks,Cecil, for proving once again that the 'core values' of the conservatives are entirely determined by partisan convenience.

Your statements could be turned around on you. What wasn't a big thing, perjury, to you during the Clinton administration, suddenly becomes your saviour. If all they get them on is obstruction and perjury, not the crime of revealing a NOC, then you are no better than what you are spouting about 'wingers'.

This is a partisan political ploy, by Wilson, that ran amuck. And Rove, Libby, possibly others, screwed up. They probably didn't know she was NOC (if she was), started covering their tracks, denying, etc., thinking a reporter would not divulge his/her source, not expecting a GJ investigation, and you know, the rest is history. Once you lie to your boss, you pretty much have to continue the lie, especially if you don't think it will come to light. End of the day, they screwed up. Fighting a lie (Wilson) with a lie (to Bush, McClellan, etc.). I still will be amazed if they are charged with outing a NOC. However, I will admit the CIA answered the questions in the affirmative that she was. We'll see. We could all be right and we could all be wrong. One thing about it, this is not one of those times where we won't know which one of us is right and which one is wrong. :)

Why is it irrelevant HOW he got the gig, because YOU think so? Let's be real about this. The only reason Wilson's op-ed was published is because it left the impression that the Administration, specifically Cheney, disregarded intelligence from its own fact-finder.

If he wrote that he was one of a few people sent by the CIA to investigate the Niger claim, that he filed a report, that he never briefed Cheney, then that op-ed never sees the light of day. You know it; I know it; Wilson knows it.

That's why Wilson overstated the importance of his mission to Cheney. That's probably human nature, or at least Joe Wilson's nature. The fact that it's not really the truth seems to be pretty relevant.

HOW DO YOU KNOW? YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED NOTHING. Those aren't facts. You can't demonstrate them. Yet they are central to what you are trying to say. You and your righty cohorts are not facing objective fact. It is far more likely that Rove is in trouble than Wilson. I have an idea. How about you give Fitzgerald a call! You can testify yourself, all about your theories of the case.

No matter how angry you get, no matter how much of a tantrum you throw, no matter how much inneuendo or how amny insults you hurl, nothing will change.

The only reason Wilson's op-ed was published is because it left the impression that the Administration, specifically Cheney, disregarded intelligence from its own fact-finder.

It's worth remembering that Wilson, anonymously through Kristof and Pincus (among other outlets), charged that the Administration absolutely had been informed - by him - that the Niger claims were bogus before the President said otherwise in his SOTU.

He essentially claimed that the President was knowlingly lying to the American people in his SOTU.

From Wilson's book, he called CNN to get Novak to not publish his wife's name. If she was NOC, why didn't the CIA call Novak and tell him not to publish her name? Or someone that could actually stop Novak from publishing her name? CNN did not have control over what Novak wrote. Sounds strange to me.

Everyone is lying in this. Too many different stories, unless the 'leaks' that aren't being 'leaked' with Fitzgerald's tight GJ are false. The game won't end with indictments. I hope they all realize this.

I don't think we want to stop the press from publishing even classified information. This story exemplifies a public relations war that takes behind the scenes with "sources" - often anonymously - making their case to the press which assesses, filters and tells the story to us.

Wilson appears to have started this one by using Kristof to tell a story distorted in quite significant ways.

The part about the CIA not warning off Novak really leaves a lot of unanswered questions for me. This isn't Novak's first ride on the merry-go-round. He knows how the game works. He calls the CIA for official confirmation, and he doesn't get the sort of clue he's looking for that means, "Don't print this." Whatever anyone may think of Novak, he certainly knows how the Beltway game of sourcing works.

How does the CIA go from that position to asking for an investigation??

I am saying that if Wilson knew his wife was NOC, which he says she was, and he knew Novak was going to publish her name, which he says he knew, why did he ask the one person who could do nothing to stop Novak? Why did he pass on to someone at CNN that his wife was NOC? Just strange, IMO.

Sue, when have I ever defended Clinton or called him my hero, and how do you know what I feel/felt about his behavior? I am not the one who is now saying perjury is no big deal. That's you all.

Every argument that claims it was relevant to claim Plame recommended Wilson presumes that the VP's office didn't request the trip, i.e. that Wilson is lying and not Cheney. Your partisan preferences can let you believe whatever you want, but neither claim can be proved irrefutably.

Jim E., don't bother with the Macho Man. He keeps projecting his own problems onto those he disagrees with. You'll just go round and round if you try and address anything he spews.

I do agree with Wolfman that Wiilson was claiming Bush knowingly lied in the SOTU. I also think Wilson was right. The ultimate result of this investigation is to add to the body of knowledge that will eventually fill history books about one of the most egregiously anti-democratic acts any American administration ever perpetrated on its own citizens.

Dairy-O-Piano, I think that's one of the reasons Novak appears to be in little trouble and why I've suspected that this about more than the leak of a name.

Back to Fitz: The overarching duty of a prosecutor is to see that justice is done. That duty often gives clarity of vision and firmness of purpose. Probity combined with those two attributes form a powerful troika, a truth engine, for justice.

There is NO evidence that Fitz is not dutiful, honest, and firm.
==========================================

Which brings us back to Novak. We don't know what he told the GJ. It could all hinge on that.

I still say if there was no crime in outing Plame, there should be an end to SPs. If Starr is going to be vilified, and he has been, for not finding anything in his original investigation but finding other crimes, then Fitzgerald should be also. Unless of course you are partisan. In which case, we are back to square one.

If lying about a blow job is no big deal, then lying about a non-issue is no big deal. The non-issue being Plame was not NOC. If that is the case at the end of the day.

I do agree with Wolfman that Wiilson was claiming Bush knowingly lied in the SOTU. I also think Wilson was right.

This is the key charge made by Wilson and how one answers it determines whether you support or hate Bush.

Today everyone knows that WMD have not been found in Iraq despite diligent searching. Was Bush told before his SOTU and, more importantly, before invading Iraq that there weren't any WMD?

As best I can determine, Wilson isn't credible in his claim about the timing of Bush's knowledge. Instead, Bush appears to have been misinformed just like the rest of us. That, of course, is troubling for a whole lot of reasons.

I am, by nature, excessively skeptical. My faith in Fitz surprises me. Perhaps it is the indirect evidence of his behaviour through this that I am responding to. There are pretty clearly two opposing and nearly mutually exclusive explanations about this whole affair. Somehow, I have faith that this man will be able to distinguish rectitude from righteousness.

The fact that there are three players, with a wild man, Wilson, in the middle, complicates matters. Obviously, the NYT has just backtracked, certainly more than Judy has, and Libby, though involved, isn't clearly criminal, yet.

Will Fitz next start deposing more, or is it time to call the round?
=========================================

The argument isn't that Cheney's request triggered the CIA sending Wilson. It's that Wilson was Cheney's guy in Niger. That's the impression Wilson's op-ed left. Bringing up exactly how Wilson got the gig demonstrates Wilson's claims in the op-ed were wrong.

Let's put it another way. It only matters HOW Wilson got the gig when he made the claim that his findings were disregarded by the Administration. If he were only one of many people sent by the CIA, then Wilson has no idea what the CIA actually told Cheney.

It's only by making the claim that he was Cheney's eyes and ears on the ground can the case be made for ignoring intelligence because it didn't fit with the war plan. The first scenario doesn't get you printed on the NYTimes' op-ed page.

Sue writes: "You keep forgetting that Wilson leaked classified information when he was the source for the Kristoff and Pincus articles. How does he catch a pass in the leaking of classified information?"

We don't have a blanket National Secrets law that criminalizes the release of any classified information.

Considerably less important to coordinate lies about issues pertaining to national security than to coordinate lies about issues pertaining to extramarital sex?

You might have a point if they were lying about national security. But that seems to be Wilson's province, and they were mostly setting the story straight. (After all, his wife did propose him for the mission, and his results didn't add much to the African uranium story.) And I don't think we really want the President fixing court cases . . . even the silly ones.

I do agree with Wolfman that Wiilson was claiming Bush knowingly lied in the SOTU. I also think Wilson was right.

Certainly not on the subject of African uranium, which the intel reports supported right up to the point they submitted the forgeries to the IAEA for confirmation. Unless you're claiming Bush had independent knowledge of the matter and should have disregarded the expert opinion?

I don't know. Ask Wilson. It is his story, not mine. And I asked the same question. Why CNN?

If the CIA was concerned about a NOC being outed, they would have tried to stop Novak. As you said, if the crime had already been committed, then stopping the outing would not have changed the status of the crime.

Just for the record, if the indictments do not include outing a NOC, will you still feel the same?

Having only dealt with lawyers from the wrong side of a checkbook, I don’t know what training they receive in the use of the written word. I would assume they are fairly careful with their choice of phrases and that this caution increases with the importance of the recipient of their work product.

With that said and reiterating I am not well versed in legal procedure, as a matter of common sense I would think that when a special prosecutor enters a grand jury investigation, the premise of his case would encompass the crime, any perjury related to the crime and/or any conspiracy leading up to the crime.

Knowing how my own overpriced legal talent agonize over every comma, phrase and intonation (in an effort to break their billing records), I find it difficult to believe that in the Miller/Cooper appeal the phrase “unanticipated shift in the investigation” meant that although the original crime remains the focus is now on perjury or conspiracy related to that same crime.

Would something clearly anticipated be classified by a meticulous lawyer such as Fitzgerald as “unanticipated” to an appeals court?

"I don't know. Ask Wilson. It is his story, not mine. And I asked the same question. Why CNN?"

It depends on the time of day, but Novak was on a daily TV show on CNN, so that would be the obvious place to call if you wanted to speak with him, about any subject.

"If the CIA was concerned about a NOC being outed, they would have tried to stop Novak. As you said, if the crime had already been committed, then stopping the outing would not have changed the status of the crime."

I'm not convinced that the CIA didn't try to stop Novak. He may have just ignored them, or rationalized a reason to dismiss their warnings.

It's tricky for the CIA rep. Whatever they say about it could end up in the press. They're in something of a no-win situation when it gets to that point. If the CIA strongly warned Novak not to report on her, Novak could report *that*, which would be just as bad.

"Just for the record, if the indictments do not include outing a NOC, will you still feel the same?"

Yep. It's possible they'll slip through a technical loophole, but at the end of the day, public knowledge is still net up one CIA agent's identity which used to be secret.

The exculpatory evidence would have to be very strong. I'd have no problem if they get charged with conspiracy and perjury, but not on IIPA or the Espionage Act.

My point is that the CIA has acted very inconsistently about this entire thing. The way they handled Novak is just another example. I believe, but I obviously can't prove, that this was orchestrated within the CIA to deflect all the criticism about WMDs not being found. According to Woodward's book, Tenet claimed it was a slam dunk. That's obviously not the case.

I just think that any indictments should start in the CIA; that's where any leaking HAD to have started.

Don
t you think is suspicious that TM is gone as this all comes out? LOL

Send out a search party and drag him bqck here.*wink*

I must say, I find Miller's report of her testimony odd..

In any event if the sp was counting on it to make his case against Libby, he must have been disappointed because there is simply in it no basis for a criminal indictment. Nor can I imagine why the hell there is anything in those notes worth sitting in jail for 18 months.

You keep changing the testimony. Wilson did not say he called to talk to Novak at CNN. He said he called to talk to a person at CNN that he knew in hopes he could get him to stop Novak.

So, as long as they 'get' Rove and Libby, possibly more in the WH, you don't care how. Sort of like how the wingers felt about Clinton. Just get them and get them anyway you can.

At least this 'winger' is willing to admit that Rove and Libby lied. Whether they lied to the SP is another story, but they did talk to reporters about Wilson and his wife. You on the other hand will not admit Wilson lied, about everything he said, except for sipping mint tea and discussing the scarves being worn to ward off the dust.

Cecil, it involves national security because it involves being faithful to the letter of the law, which they also are sworn to uphold. It isn't the prerogative of high level admin officials to decide when or if something deserves to be classified. I can't think of any area of government where it is more critical to be fastidious in following procedure, no matter how foolish one may personally find it to be.

We also have no idea if there were any national security implications that resulted from Plame's identity being released. The fact that Fitzgerald's office has identified this as a serious criminal investigation leaves open the possibility that there were repercussions we are unaware of.

One of Miller's lawyers, Robert Bennett, was asked Sunday whether he thought Libby's letter was an attempt to steer her prospective testimony.
"I wouldn't say the answer to that is yes, but it was very troubling," Bennett said on ABC's "This Week."
"Our reaction when we got that letter, both Judy's and mine, is that was a very stupid thing to put in a letter because it just complicated the situation," Bennett said.
"It was a very foolish thing to put in a letter, as evidenced by the fact that you're highlighting it here," Bennett said. "It was a close call and she was troubled by it; no question about it."

Now if Libby testified Russert first told him about Plame in July-as TM actually proposes in his post far above-Libby has problems. Unless Miller perjured herself, i.e. she left jail so she commit a crime.

"The logical explanation is the red-pen you noted above. The only "firsthand knowledge" claimed by Waas is negative (i.e., Scooter never mentioned the conversation--not what it was about). Miller's late discovery could as easily mean she hadn't considered it relevant . . . and as she's yet to testify about it, there's no way of knowing whether Plame was ever mentioned. I'd bet not."

Wong Cecil Turner! And everything you people say on this thread will similarly be disproven in four or five days. Cheers.

It isn't the prerogative of high level admin officials to decide when or if something deserves to be classified.

Assumes they knew they knew she was covert, which is not proven (or even credibly asserted in the available evidence).

Wong Cecil Turner! And everything you people say on this thread will similarly be disproven in four or five days.

Glad to see such enthusiasm. Yes, my "bet" would have been wrong (well, mostly, her name wasn't mentioned, but according to Miller she did come up):

Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?"

Not sure what "bureau" means, and the rest of Judy's version of the testimony is not exactly illuminating either. The "Flame" bit was especially shrugworthy. But if you've got the answers, please share 'em.

Well CT-don't you think it's kinda weird that Judy just sorta turns up at a rodeo(?) in Wyoming

Not sure why that would be all that weird--if Cheney was there (which I presume he was) there must have been something going on. The Aspen reference in Libby's waiver to Miller, however, was weird enough to be surreal. (Ditto for the letter from Fitzgerald that apparently prompted it.) I'll freely admit cluelessness on that subject, and in fact I'm pretty sure I don't want to know.

I've been accused recently (Jeff?) of excessive parsimony . . . a charge with more than a grain of truth. I'm also struck by the coincidence of the INR memo being bandied about on the Africa trip, right before Novak's column. And perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but that appears to be the main source of the Administration's knowledge of Plame's involvement . . . and the tidbit was too juicy to keep, and leaked immediately. That still seems to me the most likely scenario.

There's little doubt that some in the media (especially at the Times) knew more about the Wilsons than the Administration did initially (Joe was leaking to them, and then writing for them). Conversations before the INR memo was drafted would tend to support the "learned it from the media" interpretation. However, the evidence for that is sketchy at best.

Anyway, that was my (apparently derailed) logic train, which appears to've jumped the tracks over incomplete data. Some obvious possibilities are that the INR memo leaked earlier than I surmised (it was drafted on 10 June, so could be a factor anytime afterward), there was another source (possibly intel folks in the WHIG, who presumably had contacts with the CIA WMD shop), or it was recycled from the media. As far as I can tell, there's no credible reports of any of the above, and nothing to suggest one over the others.

This case has always smelled fishy to me, and I think Robert Parry has hit the nail on the head. His tough, investigative journalism has finally paid off - he's solved the mystery - at least where Miller is concerned. He has her rightly pegged as one of those "patriotic" journalists who have sold out to Washington's neocon cronies and corporate sponsors. In other words, she abandoned journalist integrity and the role of media watchdog for the role of Washington lapdog.

It goes something like this. Originally, Libby wouldn't give her a release because he wanted to make sure that she wouldn't contradict his testimony that he hadn't mentioned Valerie Wilson-Plame's name to her. So, she had to figure out a way to testify without implicating Libby - in other words, how to cover up. She sat in jail for 85 days before she realized that Fitzgerald, the Prosecutor, wasn't going to give in. Meanwhile, she figured a way to get out. She'd make a deal to testify if she didn't have to give away any other sources except Libby. Then she said that Libby hadn't mentioned Plame's name, but that some other person, someone she conveniently forgot, mentioned the name to her. That way, she wouldn't have to implicate Libby, wouldn't be pressed to give up the name, and she could use her get out of jail free card.

I don't know if her ploy will work or not but the real story to all this is how some mainstream American journalists have lost their objectivity and journalist integrity such that they can easily be sucked into Washington's labyrinthine collection of cover ups.

=================

The back story to the Judith Miller fiasco at the New York Times is the long-term erosion of skeptical journalism in the face of U.S. government pressure for greater "patriotism" from the press. In the case of Miller and the Iraq War, the barrier between reporter and government seems to have washed away almost completely.